Re: Further costs of war (fwd)
Forwarded message:
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:12:02 -0700 From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net> Subject: Re: Further costs of war
At 1:43 PM -0700 11/23/97, Jim Choate wrote: ...
Any particular methodology you might care to share on stopping WWII? Being an avid amateur historian concerning WWII I am very much interested in any insight you might have.
Not entering the war.
Do you have a particular method in mind?
There's ample evidence that the U.S. provoked the Japanese in various ways.
Such as?
(I'm not saying the Japanese were blameless, or lily-white, or"nice," etc., only that most historians agree--and Japanese archives support--that the Japanese were motivated to attack Pearl Harbor in the hope that a devastating first blow would sink enough ships, etc., to cause America to back off in its actions in the ironically named Pacific.)
So how does Tojo and his out of control Kwantung Army figure into this? Do you feel that Japans Co-prosperity Sphere was a benign goal? How do you consign your position that we provoked Japan with their behaviour in such situations as Nanking?
Had the U.S. concentrated on its own affairs, on just trade, it is unlikely that what the Japanese were doing in Malaysia, Manchuria, Korea, Indochina, and the Phillipines would have had any major interest for us.
The Phillipines at the time were a US protectorate, is your position that we should have simply turned them over without a fight? Korea was ceeded to Japan as a result of the 1903 defeat of Russia, how is this relevant to your position? Let's assume for a moment that the US hadn't gotten involved. The Japanese would have eventualy gotten to Australia. Once there what would have kept them from expanding their co-prosperity sphere eastward in order to better stabalize their resources. When they knocked on Guam or Midway's door should we have let them go like the Phillipines? How about the Japanese's eventual expansion into the Allutians? Should we have simply given Alaska to them as well? Is your position that once they had the western half of the pacific rim they would have no pretentions on the eastern half? What do you base this on?
As for Europe, this was even less our war than the Pacific war.
Really? How so? Is your position that Germany would have benignly left the US alone once they had defeated Britian (I am assuming of course the US hadn't shipped resources such as oil and fuel to them)? Had the US not gotten into the war the resources available to Germany and Japan were such they could realisticaly have beaten the Russian. One of the reasons that Russia had the resources to reinforce the eastern front was their ability to remove troops from the Chinese border based on Richard Sorge's intelligence.
In a sense, so _what_ if some army from some nation was rolling over other armies?
That depends on where they stop their rolling. Is your position that if we had refused to support conflicts against Japan and Germany all would have been well? Are you proposing that Germany would not have advanced with their atomic research? Completed development on their jet-based New York Bomber?
Those who wanted to liberate the death camps, or to push Hitler back into Gerrmany, or to kick the Emperor's butt could, of course, simply go over and volunteer. In a free society, mercenaries are legal.
Volunteer to who?
The last justifiable war the American states were involved in was, arguably, the War of 1812. Every war since then has been unjustified.
Justifiable war? How is the invasion of the US by British troops significantly different than the invasion by German or Japanese troops? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|
On Sun, Nov 23, 1997 at 09:15:20PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
Had the U.S. concentrated on its own affairs, on just trade, it is unlikely that what the Japanese were doing in Malaysia, Manchuria, Korea, Indochina, and the Phillipines would have had any major interest for us.
The Phillipines at the time were a US protectorate, is your position that we should have simply turned them over without a fight? Korea was ceeded to Japan as a result of the 1903 defeat of Russia, how is this relevant to your position? Let's assume for a moment that the US hadn't gotten involved. The Japanese would have eventualy gotten to Australia. Once there what would have kept them from expanding their co-prosperity sphere eastward in order to better stabalize their resources. When they knocked on Guam or Midway's door should we have let them go like the Phillipines? How about the Japanese's eventual expansion into the Allutians? Should we have simply given Alaska to
I guess what Tim means is at some point a equilibrium is reached, such as in this case 2 dominant players (Japan and USA) face each other and rather coexist than fight, because trading is more beneficial to them than war. The problem with such a theory is that it supposes both actors are intelligent enough to figure out when war isn't the best solution. In that particular case, I have little to no faith in the japanese side...
Really? How so? Is your position that Germany would have benignly left the US alone once they had defeated Britian (I am assuming of course the US hadn't shipped resources such as oil and fuel to them)? Had the US not gotten into the war the resources available to Germany and Japan were such they could realisticaly have beaten the Russian. One of the reasons that
Hum hum. I frankly doubt that. Somehow your ability to expand durably depends on your ability to keep your new possessions. While occupying France, using a satellite gouvernment, isn't that hard, occupying Russia (for the germans) and China (for the japanese) is another, quite impossible, task if you don't get the population support (or, at least, indifference). So, if Hitler had known better, he would have stuck to western europe...
That depends on where they stop their rolling. Is your position that if we had refused to support conflicts against Japan and Germany all would have been well? Are you proposing that Germany would not have advanced with their atomic research? Completed development on their jet-based New York Bomber?
This is a better argument than the domino theory you were suggesting for the Pacific front. If countries like France, England (and Italy, as Mussolini wasn't particulary fond of Hitler in the beginning of the 30's) had been smarter, they could have dealt with Hitler differently when he successively invaded his smallest "german speaking" neighbours. Of course, if you go that way, you may as well rewrite the Versailles treaty to avoid what happened in Germany latter. Always easy to rewrite history when you know what happened....
The last justifiable war the American states were involved in was, arguably, the War of 1812. Every war since then has been unjustified.
Justifiable as "we (the states of the Union) were invaded by the British ?". Actually, don't you think you deserved that one as the same states tried to invade (then british) Canada, hoping GB was to busy dealing with Napoleon ? Or correct me if I am wrong ? if you take that path, the last justifiable war is the independence one.
Justifiable war? How is the invasion of the US by British troops significantly different than the invasion by German or Japanese troops?
Once again, if 1812 the invasion actually occured, when during WWII it was merely a possibility. You see it as certain, Time probably doesn't, and it's a matter of opinions more than anything. Being born in Paris I am personnally rather glad the US decided to come over ;-) F. -- Fabrice Planchon (ph) 609/258-6495 Applied Math Program, 210 Fine Hall (fax) 609/258-1735
Fabrice Planchon <fabrice@math.Princeton.EDU> writes:
On Sun, Nov 23, 1997 at 09:15:20PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
Had the U.S. concentrated on its own affairs, on just trade, it is unlike that what the Japanese were doing in Malaysia, Manchuria, Korea, Indochin and the Phillipines would have had any major interest for us.
The Phillipines at the time were a US protectorate, is your position that w should have simply turned them over without a fight? Korea was ceeded to Japan as a result of the 1903 defeat of Russia, how is this relevant to you position? Let's assume for a moment that the US hadn't gotten involved. The Japanese would have eventualy gotten to Australia. Once there what would ha kept them from expanding their co-prosperity sphere eastward in order to better stabalize their resources. When they knocked on Guam or Midway's doo should we have let them go like the Phillipines? How about the Japanese's eventual expansion into the Allutians? Should we have simply given Alaska t
I guess what Tim means is at some point a equilibrium is reached, such as in this case 2 dominant players (Japan and USA) face each other and rather coexist than fight, because trading is more beneficial to them than war. The problem with such a theory is that it supposes both actors are intelligent enough to figure out when war isn't the best solution. In that particular case, I have little to no faith in the japanese side...
While I have no love for the japs, I mus point out in all fairness that FDR was attacking them on all fronts for years: 1) stopping the japs from immigrating into the us, 2) cutting off their supplies of raw materials (and therefore pushing the japs to conquer the territories that would assure the supply). In particular, right before the japs attacked pearl harbor, the US embargoed oil shipments to the japs. The japs had said previously that they'd consider such an embargo as a declaration of war. In particular, their line about p.h. was that it wasn't a "sulplise attack", and that the US had previously declared war on the japs by imposing the embargo.
Really? How so? Is your position that Germany would have benignly left the US alone once they had defeated Britian (I am assuming of course the US hadn't shipped resources such as oil and fuel to them)? Had the US not gotten into the war the resources available to Germany and Japan were such they could realisticaly have beaten the Russian. One of the reasons that
Hum hum. I frankly doubt that. Somehow your ability to expand durably depends on your ability to keep your new possessions. While occupying France, using a satellite gouvernment, isn't that hard, occupying Russia (for the germans) and China (for the japanese) is another, quite impossible, task if you don't get the population support (or, at least, indifference). So, if Hitler had known better, he would have stuck to western europe...
My recollection is that Hitler's generla staff was busily designing the plans for invading the US, to be implemented after he was done with the GB and the USSR. They involved invading via his latin american allies (notably mexico) and possibly canada. However there was no way to sell the war against germany to the american public, except as part of a package deal with the war on japs. Hitler probably made a mistake by attacking the USSR before he was finished with the GB. On the other hand, there's good evidence that Stalin was hoping to attack Germany in the summer of 1941 while it was busy invading the british isles. He made another mistake by pissing off the population, which initially was very supportive of him, viewing him as the liberator from the communists. By the way, the Nazis and the Japs were never very close. Recall that the japs became friendly with the soviets after several skirmishes in the 1930's; the japs never joined hitler in his attack on the USSR (which would have surely fallen had they attacked from the east); and the soviets kept trading with the japs (at war with their british and us allies) all the way until 1945, when they finally attacked the japs. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (3)
-
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Fabrice Planchon -
Jim Choate